freedom of speech in the socialist party

Neither of these is the solution. We don't want either ADM or the whole of next year to be dominated by this spat (Rule 33 involves special branch meetings, a Party meeting and a referendum of the whole membership) when, as everyone here has agreed, conditions haven't been so favorable for getting the socialist case across for quite a while.The solution is simple. For the participants involved to stop telling those they disagree with to fuck off or suggesting that they might be some outside plant sent in to put people off joining the Party.But I must strongly protest against one thing: the attack on Admin. This is a member who has spent hours and hours setting up this forum. He has not been involved in any of this name-calling stuff, but has the responsibility for ensuring that the discussion on this forum is conducted in an orderly manner and that participants don't infringe the rules they agreed to abide by when they joined. Things had got to such a head that he had to intervene. In fact I in effect asked him to by reporting one post.In any event, a warning is just a warning.It is completely out of order to attack Admin in this way. He must be appalled at what is happening here after all the time he spent setting up this forum and trying to makie it a success, as it was beginning to become and still can be if some participants here would just count to ten (or maybe to a hundred) before posting.

I completely concur with ALB's remarks; the attack on Admin was entirely reprehensible.  My own intervention last night was made, as anyone who knows me will confirm, with great reluctance and comes at a time when Admin is facing the huge task of moving over the website to a new webhost company because of difficulties with the existing one.Until recently I naïvely thought that responsible adults and those who describe themselves as socialists could self-moderate their behaviour.  I was wrong.

I wish to thank the forum members who came to my defence yesterday.If I had been available at the time their intervention would not have been needed, I would have had a few things to say in my defence. As it stands now, I am not allowed to reply to the less than constructive comments made against me yesterday, as any attempt to do so may lead to disciplinary action.I am reasonable enough to accept that.I wish to say if I were allowed to reply ,I would be able to refrain from using certain colourful language.I now consider the unpleasant incident to be behind us and I bear no grudge or ill will to any member. We need to get on with the business at hand, even if it means ruffling a few feathers.Now as far as I can tell OGW does not deserve the treatment he has received. His only crime, has been in trying to establish some continuity regarding forum conduct and discipline. He has been a somewhat frustrated with the outcome, but who can blame him? 

Hi OGW,I imagine they would feel just as you do and be fully justified in wanting an explanation.In fairness I think OGW should have one of the warnings removed and an apology given.But what are the chances of that?